15 May 2012

The climate for Labor backflips

Update 15 May: So now the Gillard government has started its advertising campaign in support of... well, it's impossible to tell. As the Age reports today, the "advertising blitz spruiking the carbon tax 'household
assistance package' [contains] no mention of carbon, climate change or
clean energy". The $14 million campaign tells viewers that the lump-sum
payments starting this week are ''the first part of the Australian
government's household assistance package''. Assistance for what? Here is the final irony in Labor's capitulation to opposition leader Tony Abbott's agenda. First they fall for his framing of the climate issue – as being about a carbon tax rather than the impacts of climate change on peoples' lives – and now they are campaigning in support of the tax without mentioning it, or what it is for. Of all the examples of a government losing its way, surely this is the most graphic.

This year the federal government has been very quiet about climate
change. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet’s most recent media release
on climate was on 23 March.
That his statement was devoted to the
coalition’s policy, not Labor’s, is indicative of the strategic failure
that has beset Labor’s climate communications since 2008.
In 2011, the government did not construct a narrative about adverse
global warming impacts on people’s lives as a reason for action and the
carbon legislation. The ‘Clean Energy Future’ campaign
– in which the word ‘climate’ barely rated a mention – did not go
beyond selling an answer without ever elaborating the problem.
And in 2011, the Labor government was so desperate not to mention
that t*x word that it constructed the awkward – and poorly understood –
term of “a price on pollution”. This left the discourse about t*xes
entirely to opposition leader Tony Abbott, with devastating
consequences.
Now the language of ‘clean energy’ and ‘price on pollution’ are also
disappearing from the public ear. It remains unclear as to what campaign
will be run after July 1, but it is likely to focus narrowly on
‘compensation’ (t*x cuts by any other name).
Labor is not talking about climate because its advisers believe this
is the ‘least-worst’ option. I fear that the advice, probably emanating
from polling in western Sydney, is no more soundly based than that from
the NSW Right that suggested replacing Rudd with Gillard would be a
masterstroke when Labor was 52 per cent in the polls (two-arty
preferred), compared to 41 per cent now.
The ALP knows it is dead in the water and is now trying to save the
furniture. Claims that the climate legislation is toxic for the
government led to suggestions from advisers either to weaken the legislation, or to abandon the issue in public discourse.
The first option is not viable. The Coalition will not vote for the
package in any form, because it undermines its position of blanket
opposition now, and repeal in government. And the Greens will not
support a weakening of the package.
So option two it is. Labor has all but abandoned efforts to
communicate the virtues of the legislation which was at the core of its
deal with the independents and the Greens to retain power after August
2010.
Both Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are serial offenders in this area.
In early 2010 they leant on Rudd to abandon carbon pricing, a backflip
which cost Labor support and provided the pretext for the Gillard coup.
They led Labor to the August 2010 election without a climate policy,
backflipped again to do a deal with the Greens and independents, and are
now publicly abandoning the hallmark issue of this parliamentary term.
Through these twists and turns, Labor, since 2008, has been reluctant
to act decisively, and at no stage has exhibited consistent leadership.
It made no serious effort to drive public opinion on the issue with a
story about the opportunity to build a safe and secure future for people
and planet, as opposed to a world of increasing climate extremes and
insecurity.
This personal climate narrative about people and their immediate
concerns – self, family, where and how they live and work, home, food
and water in/security – and the choice between climate harm and climate
safety is one that Labor never told. This was the biggest mistake. Has
Prime Minister Gillard ever displayed any emotion – or understanding
beyond a policy brief – on climate?
So Labor’s present tack is not surprising, though the advice to abandon the climate story is deeply flawed:

The only position now left to the government after July 1 is to
say that tax compensation will make most families ‘no worse off’ with
carbon pricing. But being ‘no worse off’ is not a compelling reason to
introduce disruptive legislation, or to do anything;

Not talking climate and legislation won’t take it off the agenda
or persuade Abbott to do the same. His position is now woven into the
story he tells every day and he will be emboldened by the weakness
displayed by his enemy;

There is no consideration as to whether or not climate is really
the toxic issue, or whether the combination of Gillard+climate (or
Gillard+anything) is the key problem;

No thought was given to the option of displaying leadership and
campaigning with heart and energy for the legislation, and telling a
compelling story about the choice between increasing climate harm and
climate safety. This would be very different from the Clean Energy
Future campaign last year, which completely missed the mark.

Research studies
find that media coverage of climate change directly affects public
concern levels, and that the actions of political elites turn out to be
the most powerful driver of public concern. By abandoning the field,
Labor is likely to further weaken the level of public concern, in a
spectacular own goal.
In the US, public understanding of climate is on the rebound
despite the deniers’ assault, with people attributing their increased
concern about global warming to their correct perception that the planet
is warming and the weather is getting more extreme. It is astounding
that no Labor leader can say in public what most US citizens already
know: that global warming is making high-profile extreme weather events
worse.
The failure to grasp such opportunities is consistent with a
government that was always unsure about how to engage the public on
climate. The confusion and dismay within the government is reflected in
the new giving up.